You could always do like I do, and make most of your Facebook information, disinformation.:) I change my employer and location to various government facilities. Sometimes people get confused at the more obscure ones. Sometimes, it's just an arbitrary city and bogus employer. Most of my posts are for my own entertainment.

I don't know what someone would be looking for there, but they're not going to find much factual stuff.

I'm not sure, that may qualify me more to be watched. Or I already am, and have been put on the list "harmless people with strange sense of humor"

While there may be overlaps, my understanding is the primary objective of FaceBook and Adultfriendfinder are not precisely the same. For example, it seems that many more photos on facebook involves clothing, and I am sure many of the people on facebook do not intend to have sex with everyone who friends them.

Ohhh.. you'll get applicants all right. Not what you are looking for though.

Try it. If you sell an "antique writing desk with hutch" it will get instantly translated into, "I'm desperate for vagina. Call or email me at all hours of the fucking night if you have vagina to sell me".

I'm Dutch. If I go to their page I only see "ads" for US looking girls with US names living close to my IP address.Surely a US prostitute wouldn't fly all the way over here; it would be too expensive, therefore it must be real.

I submit that this sort of story is overblown.Yes, this is one out of hundreds of characteristics on a list. Just having one or even fifty from the list doesn't mean any individual has crossed the threshold of "suspicious". Everyone on/. should be familiar with this sort of thing from spam filters.

I submit that this sort of story is overblown.Yes, this is one out of hundreds of characteristics on a list. Just having one or even fifty from the list doesn't mean any individual has crossed the threshold of "suspicious". Everyone on/. should be familiar with this sort of thing from spam filters.

Agreed - sort of. This is just one out of hundreds of characteristics, but the title is correct: Facebook Abstainers Could Be Labeled Suspicious.

And it makes sense, why would someone not want to join a site where all your friends are? It's 2012 equivalent to a shut-in or recluse. [wikipedia.org] People are naturally suspicious of someone that chooses not to join normal society.

And it's going to get worse before it gets better, even if Facebook is replaced, there will be another website most people join. Facebook has been popular for what, 6, 7 years? There are teenagers today that don't remember life without Facebook, and as those teens become adults it's going to sound more perverse to hear someone say "I do not have a Facebook account"

Even now, I know people who have been denied jobs, apartments and loans because they do not have a Facebook account, because Facebook is a great tool to contact everyone you "know" to check background and try and reach you if something happens i.e. steal and skip town, etc

if anyone asks why you don't have an FB acct, tell them that you understand computers pretty well, are aware of security problems and that FB is just not secure enough to use. and don't say a word more than that.

in essence, its true, but not the way they may think of it. and it makes them wonder.

which is a good thing.

(did I say 'security' instead of 'privacy'? oh dear! well, it is what it is.)

No, I didn't mean that at all. I was simply questioning the arrogance/delusion/insanity of someone implying they belong to "normal society".

Especially when talking about mass murder. Yes, it takes a rather fucked up person to open fire on random people, much less children. But the fact that a (supposedly) "well-adjusted individual" can make a career out of the collateral death of orders of magnitudee more people, and most people don't even fucking blink, makes the notion of "normal society" kind of ridiculous. This kind of lunacy is a steady and ever-present killer... you can steal the life of people by leading them in circles or down dead ends no problem, that's a-okay. But when some psycho does that on a much smaller scale, we're kind of relieved because we have someone we can feel morally superior to. Which kind of makes me sick.

Valuing privacy and refusing to participate in information sharing with a company that will only use it in ways you don't approve of hardly makes you suspicious. If some people really do find that suspicious and can't understand the reasons... screw em. You will have as much success changing their minds as changing ultra-religious fanatics minds about their intolerance and bigotry.

The real concern is if businesses or governments start using the lack of social networking presence as grounds for investigations or refusal to be employed.

Or that you don't give a rat's ass about 99% of the stupid shit your "friends" post on FB. Most of those people who instantly tried to friend me were people from high school, many of whom were too cool to talk to my nerdy self back then. I didn't like them then, and they've been out of my life for 15 years. I couldn't care less that their baby did something today. Heck, my aunts, uncles, and grandparents use it all the time, so I don't think age is the delineating factor. It's more that I have way more things in my real life than I can keep up with, and I'd much rather be social over a pint at a pub or a MakerFaire or a reprap get-together than on some website with people that don't matter in my life anymore.

I kept my account for about three months, mostly to see if I could find a couple old girlfriends and see what they were up to after my ex and I split. After that, I removed any content I could (I basically only ever uploaded one bland picture and some trivial details) and then told them to delete it. It was just adding to the noise side of the SNR in my life, so I just decided I was done with it. It does seem to be deactivated, but I suspect the Eagles were right on this one - you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

They're a commercial enterprise making their money off profiting from the private data of others. I've had libertarians proclaim the company to be an example of the value of the free market, but I consider them an example of how a private company will manage to find something valuable about others and get money for it with a higher cost than you might realize.

Now maybe you consider the service Facebook provides worth it, but I consider the cost of being on Facebook not worth any service.

So...count me out of it. I could even be convinced to shut them down, though it would probably take some serious abuses before enough public support could trump the propaganda for it.

Breivik most certainly did have a Facebook account. He networked with anti-immigration and anti-Islam groups on Facebook. His address list for his manifesto was compiled from Facebook profiles that he had friended.

Uhm... no. The more that Facebook is seen as something that you need to do (institutionalization) instead of something you do because it is cool, the less cool it will be. In fact this line of thinking may even make it cool to 'rebel' against the establishment (Facebook). This is how these social networking sites die. The cool kids leave first, everyone else follows soon after.

Sorry, but I have no desire to have my personal information shared on FaceBook, nor do I care about the status updates of 'friends". I was on there, and deleted my account. I see no value in it. If people want to get ahold of me, they can text, email, IM me. If they want to know what I'm up to, they can ask or check out my website for info.

If that labels me as "suspicious" so be it. I have no desire to see Fuckerberg make money from his hodge-podge system.

I'll admit the MySpace to Facebook comparison was closer. However... comparing Facebook to AdultFriendFinder? Either I don't hang out in the "right" Facebook groups or this is total bull. They are not even close to interchangeable in purpose, audience nor function.

I suppose the reason I find the concept of this article sad is that we're moving to a place where instead of an expectation of privacy... we now have an expectation of no privacy. I post photos, sure, and status updates and events. But I'm careful about the permissions on them and I don't post EVERYTHING nor will I. If that makes me suspect, well, I guess suspect me. But it -should- show I have a reasonable level of intelligence on what I keep private.

While I do use Facebook, I have a number of friends, neighbors and co-workers who do not. And I don't consider them suspect. Why would I? I don't go "oh, my neighbor is always frequenting that gaming site but refuses to use Facebook, he must have something to hide".

I also have a number of friends who either maintain multiple accounts (because they hate dealing with permissions) OR keep their account obscured so that you have to know that it is their account (different name, odd profile photo, different email account, etc). Purely because we ALL have people in our lives we don't want to know EVERYTHING. Is that the next step for being suspected?

Glass walls. You don't want them. At least not until everyone in power can give up their judgements about peoples' personal lives.

That was 1990s online culture, where parents would caution kids not to use their real name or info online, that kind of thing. Today, the parents are using their real name online themselves, and are more likely to demanding legislation against anonymous postings because of "cyberbullying" than to encourage anonymity.

because I have a barebones Facebook account with almost nothing on it and I never use it.
I think I created it some years ago so I could get tickets to a comedy club, or something.
I do networking through LinkedIn and that's about it.
I guess I'm a mass murderer.

Homer: “Hmm; how does it work?”
Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!”
Homer: “Uh-huh.”
Lisa: “ but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”
Homer: “...Lisa, I want to buy your rock.”
The question not answered by the article - or at least the shorter translation since I don't read German - is who exactly is making this assumption. Is it the German government? Or is, in fact, just this newspaper?

So using megadoses of peer-pressure to get everyone on Facebook isn't enough anymore... Now not being on Facebook is actually considered to be a serious clue that there is something seriously wrong with you? What a load of bullshit. What a load of bullshit. What a load of bullshit. ------ Many ordinary people who are smart about privacy do not put their lives on Facebook for a very good reason: Zuckerbook exists purely to make money, and cannot be TRUSTED with the details of your life, however mundane they may be. 3 cheers for everyone who abstains from Facebook for privacy reasons. Hip-Hip-Hooray. Hip-Hip-Hooray. Hip-Hip-Hooray. ------- End of message -----------

I get funny looks all the time when I say I know all about FacePlace and consciously refuse to join.
My sister worked on me for months (we're both "old") to join before I finally got testy and told her under no circumstances would I join. I think she thought I just didn't understand it and just needed to be shown how wonderful it was. She was genuinely hurt by my reaction.
It's like belonging to a religion in many ways. True believers have trouble understanding how others don't share their beliefs; clearly they just need the right explanation to bring them around.

Just like the car commercial I go out and do things, with real people, not sit at my table cyber stalking 682 people at the same time watching dumb shit puppy videos. I also am not a 20 something living at my parents house and actually have work and responsibilities.

I know that the story CIA's 'Facebook' Program Dramatically Cut Agency's Costs [theonion.com] was in the onion, but I would be surprised if the CIA did not tap into Facebook's data. Those of us who do not have a Facebook account must be a pain... how to encourage us to tell the CIA^h^h^h Facebook all that they need to know.... how about make them feel worried that they might fall under increased suspicion ? Well: it will work with a few people, so a cheap and effective way of gathering information about more people.

I consider my self a pioneer in the use of computers but also modern. My experience covers the range from plug boards and punched cards to client-server networks and remote operation of PCs.

I do not participate in any social network. I have little interest in "friending" someone I never met face-to-face. I do not tweet. Now retired, I have no real use for LinkedIn. See my http://www.rossde.com/internet/surf.html#missing [rossde.com].

As a native German I just read the German article, and have to say it was a quite a good article. It just said not leaving any traces online(Facebook, MySpace etc.) makes you look suspicous in the eyes of HR departments, and you will probably not get the Job, because you might try to hide something. It also quted Dr. Christoph Möller that being addicted to Social Network can deepen Basic Mental Health Problems and also strengthen fear. Dr. Möller also said that he DOES NOT believe that absence from the Internet can lead to mass murders as committed by Anders Breivik and the Shooter from Aurora.

It's strange that a German publication would be so quick to make these sorts of suggestions. Did they learn nothing from the examples of the Stasi and East Germany? If the leaders of East Germany and the Stasi could have seen the Facebook of today they probably would have be green with envy. How else to describe billions of people willingly and naively participating in their own mass surveillance? To what sinister purpose might this information be put in the future? It's impossible to believe that the governments of this world, even those who claim to be democratic, will not be sorely tempted to acquire and misuse the information currently being gathered by the likes of Facebook. That's a pretty high price to pay, in my opinion, for keeping up with your friends. To those using Facebook: Have you not considered the long term consequences of what your doing? Are you nuts? Delete the Facebook account and pick up some good history books instead. You will see that history has not been kind to the gullible and the naive.

Historically someone who behaves differently than everyone else could be labeled suspicious. It's how those in control suppressed rebelious thoughts. It's the same reason why the masses generally concider scientists to be suspicious.

Social anything is bullshit. I don't need big corporations to track who I speak to. Why am I expected to have 200 friends? Anybody that says they have more than a handful of friends doesn't really understand the meaning of the word friend. Acquaintances, buddies, coworkers... sure. But friends? Quite a different thing. So, why would I publish my life online so that anybody can find out about it from the comfort of their homes? I don't hide my activities. If you want to know anything about my life, it's enough to call and ask. But publishing them is altogether a different thing.

Ultimately, my rejection of social.* isn't because I'm a privacy nut. My google account is tied to just about every service they have, and they've run my email since 2004 or so (I got my account very early in the invite-only era of gmail). My company's mail goes through google for your domain (now google apps). It's not tracking that bothers me the most, it's just that I find the whole concept of the social web stupid. If I'm interested in knowing something about you, I'll call you and we'll catch up over a beer. I don't need twitter or facebook or whatever. The reason I block everything is it just pisses me off how they creep around you and stalk you all the time into creating an account.

I'm starting a compay that knocks people to the ground and puts a boot on their neck. My business model is to sell ads on the soles of the boots. Ticker symbol FY is available. W00t! Get the VCs on the line.

Actually, it's only recently that serial killers have begun getting facebook accounts just to hide form this kind of profiling. It is clearly traceable that even as recently as 2004, 100% of known serial killers did not have facebook accounts.

and if routine identity control on the street finds an abstainer then a deep cavity search should performed - who knows what such abstainer can hide there...

His/her privacy, for one (the horror!).

A Facebook abstainer could be a future mass murderer. And so could a Facebook participant.
A Facebook abstainer could be a saint and a scholar. And so could a Facebook participant (OK, that's a bit dodgy).
The whole thesis of judging people by whether they are on Facebook or not is ridiculous.

Out of 7 billion persons on this planet, let's say 4 billion are adults but not yet too decrepit to handle a PC or smartphone - i.e. of suitable age for Facebook. There are less than 1 billion Facebook participants (probably quite a bit less, due to fake accounts, etc.). So by a conservative estimate, 3 billion persons on the planet are Facebook abstainers, and therefore are potential mass murderers or something. Such an intellectually vacuous conclusion can only be reached by digesting utterly absurd bullshit.

This is one time the corporates had it right before the people did. Abstaining from FB doesn't leave you anonymity. It just means you have zero control over your online image. So corporates buy extra domains they don't want to control their online presence. They have ORTs (online response teams - not sure if that's a real term, but I've run across more than one corporation with that exact name). They know that you will be out there. The only question is whether you have any control over the information about you.

Ironically, you have more control over your FB presence if you have an FB account than if you don't. Why? Because with one, you can be tagged and set yourself to private, which marginally reduces the information available. Unless you are one of the slashdotters who asserts that because you never leave Mom's basement, nobody will take a photo of you, and if they did, they wouldn't want your cheetoe-stained beard on their profile.

But yes, looking "normal" and not having a FB account is unusual, and probably does corrrelate with insanity and people wearing foil-lined wigs.

For any job that requires the persons name and character "to be out there" that's a filter. However you could just ask the people if they're ok with their name being in public...

I don't get though that people who had elaborate homepages and went as far as publishing their houses blueprints, listing their hobbies and how many ticks their cat had on their ol' skool '90s web presence som

I'm starting a compay that knocks people to the ground and puts a boot on their neck. My business model is to sell ads on the soles of the boots. Ticker symbol FY is available. W00t! Get the VCs on the line.

Won't sell. Your business model has one crucial flaw: it's hard to outsource.

"According to this article printed in tagesspiegel.de, being a living mammal could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.(German) As examples they use Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik, who is a homo sapien and the newer Aurora shooter who was also a person. They already consider those requiring life support as also suspicious, but now they are suggesting that anyone who is healthy altogether may be even more suspicious. While it is already established that places like hospitals and clinics are no good for zombies, the dead, and ghosts; the undead will have to take a back seat while more and more insane articles like this come out. This line of thinking could sure help morgue businesses."

Not too long ago my national government was looking for a way to make digital dealings with the government easier. As usual, a truckload of very, very expensive consultants were brought in (Cap Gemini) who then spent a lot of time, money and paper working on possible ways to accomplish this.

Their final verdict? Facebook integration. I kid you not. These guys actually thought using Facebook as the primary identifier to facilitate dealings with local and national government would be a good idea.

Fortunately it seems there must have been some civil servants with a bit of sense, because those documents were very quickly never heard from again.

I'm not buying it. Even if that were what we were talking about, it seems impractical to the point of absurdity, and might well reduce the fidelity of screening like that if it even exists. And I'm not sure anyone is nearly as worried about finding the white male mass murderer at places where we screen. At least, not so much as terrorists... people, it seems, we have a hard enough time picking out of a crowd with much better data.

But it doesn't matter, there's a list of reasons I don't see that happening

Isn't this just another form of discrimination? We've finally gotten (mostly) past looking at people's race, religion, sexual preference, and skin color but we can now look at their willingness to keep nothing personal and private and hold that against them? How is this legal?

You can't change your race, but you can easily create a Facebook account that contains nothing useful or interesting, send friend requests to random people and accept any that come your way. If this becomes a real issue I'm sure we can automate the whole process so that you can have virtual Facebook presence without having to actually visit the damn thing yourself. As an added bonus having various Facebots interact with each other trying to pretend they are humans while other bots try to spot them should help advance AI quite a bit.

"With that massive sample size of 2 cases they MUST be right...that's rock solid statistical analysis./p>

I find it disconcerting that having a FaceBook account makes you less suspicious and more hirable. Isn't this just another form of discrimination? We've finally gotten (mostly) past looking at people's race, religion, sexual preference, and skin color but we can now look at their willingness to keep nothing personal and private and hold that against them? How is this legal?"

I don't have a Facebook account because I neither have the time nor the desire to put any degree of personal data on there. It simply does not interest me, and heaven knows I post enough on the intertubes.